Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited v Media24 (Proprietary) Limited and Others (019323) [2014] ZACT 96; [2014] 2 CPLR 502 (CT) (18 August 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient interest in the competition and public interest issues arising from the proposed merger, particularly regarding control of Naspers Limited, the sharing of confidential information, coordinated effects, and the impact on the media sector. The Tribunal granted leave to intervene, but limited the scope of intervention to the specified issues under sections 12A(2) and 12A(3) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal set out the rights of participation, including access to documents, discovery, calling witnesses, and presenting arguments, subject to confidentiality undertakings and procedural limitations to ensure efficient proceedings.

Court disposition

Leave to intervene granted to the applicant, subject to specified limitations and procedural requirements.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to intervene in the merger proceedings, limited to specified competition and public interest issues under sections 12A(2) and 12A(3) of the Competition Act.
  • The applicant may participate in the merger hearing with rights to attend pre-hearing conferences, access and inspect documents, call for discovery, summon witnesses, adduce evidence, cross-examine, and present argument, subject to confidentiality undertakings and Tribunal limitations.
  • The applicant must produce its list of proposed witnesses within three business days of receipt of the confidential record.
  • The Competition Commission must provide the applicant with the confidential record within three business days, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
  • Costs of the application are reserved pending determination of the merger at the main hearing.

02

Material facts

Parties

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited

Applicant

Media24 (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Paarl Media Group (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Paarl Media Holdings (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Paarl Coldset (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

The Competition Commission

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Intervention Application / Order Granting Leave to Intervene in Merger Proceedings

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought leave to intervene in the merger proceedings, arguing that the proposed merger would have significant competition and public interest effects in the printing and publishing industries. The applicant contended that its participation was necessary to address concerns regarding control of Naspers Limited, access to confidential information, coordinated effects, and the impact on the media sector.
Respondent
The respondents opposed or sought to limit the scope of the applicant's intervention, arguing that any participation should be strictly confined to relevant competition and public interest issues. They emphasized the need to protect confidential information and ensure the efficiency and expedition of the merger proceedings.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, 1998, sections 12A(2) and 12A(3)

    Intervention in merger proceedings may be granted where the applicant demonstrates a substantial interest in competition and public interest issues as contemplated in the Competition Act.

  2. 02

    Competition Tribunal Rules

    Access to confidential information by intervening parties must be subject to appropriate undertakings to respect and protect confidentiality.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient interest in the competition and public interest issues arising from the proposed merger, particularly regarding control of Naspers Limited, the sharing of confidential information, coordinated effects, and the impact on the media sector. The Tribunal granted leave to intervene, but limited the scope of intervention to the specified issues under sections 12A(2) and 12A(3) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal set out the rights of participation, including access to documents, discovery, calling witnesses, and presenting arguments, subject to confidentiality undertakings and procedural limitations to ensure efficient proceedings.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the applicant's rights of participation may be further limited during the course of proceedings to ensure the expedition and efficiency of the hearings.
  • The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to timetables and procedural requirements to avoid unnecessary delays in the merger hearing.

Court disposition

Leave to intervene granted to the applicant, subject to specified limitations and procedural requirements.

  • The applicant is granted leave to intervene in the merger proceedings, limited to specified competition and public interest issues under sections 12A(2) and 12A(3) of the Competition Act.
  • The applicant may participate in the merger hearing with rights to attend pre-hearing conferences, access and inspect documents, call for discovery, summon witnesses, adduce evidence, cross-examine, and present argument, subject to confidentiality undertakings and Tribunal limitations.
  • The applicant must produce its list of proposed witnesses within three business days of receipt of the confidential record.
  • The Competition Commission must provide the applicant with the confidential record within three business days, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
  • Costs of the application are reserved pending determination of the merger at the main hearing.

Source and reliance status

Competition Tribunal

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Competition Tribunal

Order

[2014] ZACT 96

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No.: 019323

In the matter between:

CAXTON AND CTP

PUBLISHERS AND PRINTERS LIMITED.............................................Applicant

and

MEDIA24 (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED................................................................................1st Respondent

PAARL MEDIA GROUP (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED.....................................................2nd Respondent

PAARL MEDIA HOLDINGS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED..............................................3rd Respondent

PAARL COLDSET (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED...............................................................4th Respondent

THE COMPETITION COMMISSION..................................................................................5th Respondent

Panel: A Wessels (Presiding Member),

M Mazwai (Tribunal Member) and

A Roskam (Tribunal Member)

Heard on : 13 August 2014

Decided on : 18 August 2014

ORDER

Having heard the parties to the application for intervention, the Tribunal orders the following:

1. The applicant is granted leave to intervene in the merger proceedings before the Tribunal under the above case number, such intervention

being limited to the likely effect of the merger between the merging parties under sections 12A(2) and 12A(3) of the Competition Act, 1998 (“the Act”), with specific reference to the following issues:

1.1 the current firm or firms directly or indirectly controlling Naspers Limited (specifically the following shareholders of the unlisted A ordinary shares: Naspers Beleggings Ltd (“Nasbei”), Keeromstraat 30 Beteggings Ltd (“Keerom”), Wheatfields 221 (Pty) Ltd (“Wheatfields”), Sholto Investments BVI, De Goedgedacht Trust, Sanlam Ltd and Messer’s Stofberg and Bekker) and their interests in the printing and publishing industries and the competition effects thereof in the context of the proposed merger;

1.2 whether or not the proposed merger will enhance access to or the sharing of confidential competitive information; give rise to, or increase the risks of, coordinated effects in the printing and/or publishing markets. This includes the issue of how the proposed merger changes the pre-merger control of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents (i.e. the “target firms” in the proposed merger) and the post-merger incentives of Media24 (Pty) Ltd;

1.3 the effect of the proposed merger on the public interest, and in particular its effect on the media sector as contemplated in section 12A(3)(a) of the Act; and

1.4 the conditions, if any, to be considered by the Tribunal in relation to a potential conditional approval of the proposed merger.

2. The applicant’s participation in the merger hearing shall include the right to:

2.1 attend pre-hearing conferences;

2.2 to have access to, and to inspect, any documents filed by any of the merger parties and other participants in the merger proceedings to the extent that they relate to the issues set out in paragraph 1 above, provided that any confidential information shall unless otherwise directed be limited to the applicant’s legal representatives and (economic) experts on the condition that they provide appropriate undertakings to respect and protect confidentiality;

2.3 call for the discovery of further documents from the merger parties and other participants in the merger proceedings to the extent that they relate to the issues set out in paragraph 1 above;

2.4 request the Tribunal to direct, summon and/or order any person to appear at the merger hearing and/or to produce documents relevant to the merger hearing to the extent that they relate to the issues set out in paragraph 1 above;

2.5 participate in any interlocutory proceedings in respect of the merger hearing;

2.6 adduce oral and documentary evidence at the merger hearing to the extent that it relates to the issues set out in paragraph 1 above;

2.7 cross-examine any of the witnesses of the merger parties and any other participants of the merger hearing to the extent that it is relevant to the issues set out in paragraph 1 above; and

2.8 present argument at the merger hearing to the extent that it relates to the issues set out in paragraph 1 above.

3. The participants rights granted in paragraph 2 above will be subject to:

3.1 limitations on their exercise imposed by the Tribunal from time to time during the course of the proceedings to ensure the expedition and efficiency of the hearings;

3.2 adherence by the applicant to any timetable set by the Tribunal for attending to any pre-hearing procedures and filing of any processes in this matter; and

3.3 the requirement that the applicant produce its list of proposed witnesses by no later than 3 (three) business days after date of receipt of the confidential record; provided further that if the applicant seeks to call any witnesses to also be called by the Commission in this matter the Commission shall have the priority to lead such witness.

4. The Commission must, subject to the appropriate confidentiality undertakings, provide the applicant with the confidential record of its proceedings within three business days of this order.

5. The costs of this application are reserved pending determination of the merger at the main hearing.

18 August 2014

Date

Presiding Member

A Wessels

Concurring: M Mazwai and A Roskam

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Competition Act, 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.